You have a severe reading comprehension problem. I did not say what you said. You need to slow down, re-read your post, then mine. If you can't do that I'll tell you my point is shortening matches allows the element of luck to increase. A shortened match format (no-ad) was tried back in the 80's at the D1 level. A couple of top D1 teams lost to teams attributed to no-ad, Lander def. Georgia. No-ad went away shortly thereafter.

ITA and USTA announcing they are drafting a joint opposition position is awesome in addition to the overwhelming pressure from coaches, media, fans, players, and alumni. And I read somewhere the NCAA is already blinking and will have a meeting or call or something to discuss further.

Collette Lewis at zootennis.com is covering this and doing her darndest to make what impact she can so we can keep track of very latest over there.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think we're making progress in getting this reconsidered and at least keeping the third set for singles!

Have to agree with that attitude. I'm not going to get into it any further on how shorten match formats level the playing field for the less skilled and less fit. I think we agree there. However, the coaches and the ITA create the rules for college tennis, the NCAA controls the year end championships. The NCAA usually follows the ITA's direction. We'll see who prevails.

Seriously? It's all a matter of degree's I guess. So you'd say same thing if grand slams were just a single 12 point tiebreak instead of best of 5?

The tremendous mental and physical combined requirements of high level tennis set our sport apart from every other. Top players are absolute warriors mentally and physically.

If you want to see lessor tests of heart, stamina, courage, and mental toughness, there are a lot of other sports to go watch.

Click to expand...

Also have to agree here. A big server with little ground game has a big advantage in a TB. Put two of them in a 6 game pro set of doubles and that factor widens. The whole new rule ideas are just plain awful.

Also have to agree here. A big server with little ground game has a big advantage in a TB. Put two of them in a 6 game pro set of doubles and that factor widens. The whole new rule ideas are just plain awful.

Click to expand...

what is big serve in college ? 120 mph ? it will force players to develop a better return game

I'm surprised the NCAA even cares. Unless there was a huge outcry among coaches and players to make these changes, I wouldn't expect the NCAA to even consider the issue of match format. Where did that come from? I guess that committee of busy bodies.

I gathered together a lot of the articles and reports about the changes, as well as the NCAA report itself. There is also a link to the petition. They still haven't reached their goal so please go sign the petition if you want to stop the NCAA from making the changes.

Though maybe not as huge of deal, I was disappointed to see that the NCAA wants to change the tournament to just a "final four" format, instead of having the last 16 teams advance to the site where the championship will be determined.

Though maybe not as huge of deal, I was disappointed to see that the NCAA wants to change the tournament to just a "final four" format, instead of having the last 16 teams advance to the site where the championship will be determined.

Click to expand...

I'm actually a fan of that. Creating 4 regional sites and then the Final 4 and singles/doubles at its own site. Thinking that sites in California, Texas, Ohio, and Georgia would make sense. It would expose more fans to high level tennis on a regular basis. I'd also like to see a "Final 4" town be permanently established like Omaha is for baseball.

Logistically, I am thinking it minimizes costs for a player or doubles team that loses in round of 16 and then stays another 5-6 days to play again. Let the school/player decide when they need to arrive to play individuals. Of course, it'd be easier to do with TV coverage (a la volleyball) of the regional finals and Final Four.

Again, my proposal on televising the sport is to NOT cover doubles, lead in with highlights from the doubles point, then cover singles matches to conclusion. Networks can do this in a 2 hour time block with few matches going over that time (4-3 or 4-2 matches with multiple 3 setters). A shortened format is NOT necessary. Matches get suspended upon clinching anyways.

I'm actually a fan of that. Creating 4 regional sites and then the Final 4 and singles/doubles at its own site. Thinking that sites in California, Texas, Ohio, and Georgia would make sense. It would expose more fans to high level tennis on a regular basis. I'd also like to see a "Final 4" town be permanently established like Omaha is for baseball.

Click to expand...

For all the reasons you mentioned pairing down to a final four, maybe even a double elimination event would make for a lot of good tennis available to a lot of people, including the fans, families, and friends.

The 6 game pro set, 10 pt breaker instead of a full third NOT good ideas at all unless the goal is to eliminate some of the foreign student athletes.

Most of the foreign players, and other top Americans use the NCAA system as a development transition tool to the pro's. If your goal is to weed out those who's longer term goal is pro tennis. This would certainly contribute to that goal.

I am new here, but have attended the last 5 NCAA team tournaments as an avid

but very disappointed UVA fan. I doubt those advocating "no changes" have attended very many. From this fan's viewpoint the current format is ridiculous and it takes way, way too long and is very expensive for any fan who stays all 5 days for the team event to play out.

Then when you add on the individual event that starts the very next day, it becomes an endurance contest for the top players on the top teams and it is not good for their health. I think USC's Steve Johnson played singles and doubles on Friday with a day off on Saturday and then singles and doubles (maybe he lost before the finals in doubles?) for 10 consecutive days in the 90+ degree temperatures and it probably was over 100 on the hard courts at UGA. I heard that he almost had a heat stroke during the individual event.

The first 4 days of the current format starts with matches at 9AM and they usually end around midnight. Who can watch 15 hours of college tennis for 4 straight days? The answer of course is no one can, except many of the wonderful volunteers and administrative staff have to be there.

One thing for sure, the players and coaches do not watch the other teams play unless it is an unlucky assistant who is scouting. You will sometimes see a player, who has to stick around for the individual event, and his coach whose team has lost come over to watch but I think it is mostly to scout a future opponent or just avoid the boredom of the hotel room. The rest of the smart players and coaches are in air conditioning somewhere after practicing in the morning and then they wait and wait some more.

There is a little shade at UGA, but most of the seats are in the sun on hard metal benches, so I dare anyone to seat in the hot sun from 9 AM until the sun sets around 7:30 PM and then stay through midnight when the last match ends on the first 4 days. The reality is that 95% to 99% of the fans, who do come, only come to watch their own teams play and then they leave.

At UGA last year there were very good crowds (for tennis anyway), like over 2,500 when UGA played in the quarters against Pepperdine. Had UGA advanced to semis and finals they would have had huge crowds, but when they had to go indoors for the finals due to rain there would not have been enough room for all of them to watch it.

The rest of the time I doubt there were 500 fans there at any one time. At Tulsa the place was deserted as Tulsa lost early. Same thing at College Station as A & M lost early. Stanford was a little better, but the Stanford men made it to semis that year and the women may have made the finals. The two NCAA's at UGA have had the best attendance and that is because the UGA fans are tennis crazy.

I think this is mostly about TV and $$$. ESPNU had been televising the finals, but they did not do so this past year. They most likely need a guarantee of shorter matches, because they cannot stay on the air if the match runs 4 or maybe even 5 hours as some women's matches have in the past. TV has schedules to keep and a 3 hour window is likely what they want.

The obvious (to me anyway) solution is to add a super regional for the 16's and quarters. The local fans would come out and watch. Then you have a final four. From an attendance viewpoint and IMO playing the final 4 at a neutral site will be a mistake. I prefer it to be at the highest seed remaining home courts.

As to the scoring, with a Final 4 fatigue and 15 hour days no longer a factor if you go to the super regional for the quarters. I would not change the scoring. I would play the singles first, which of course means doubles would rarely be played because they stop the matches at 4 points. As fan I do like to watch doubles, but almost always the team that wins the doubles point, quickly wins three singles matches often at the bottom of the lineup, so quite often the 1 and 2's never finish their singles matches and they are the ones who people like to watch play. With doubles last, at least one more singles match would have to be played out.

As we all know there are very few "big" upsets in college tennis. Maybe when the 8 seed plays 9, 10 plays 7, or when 4 and 5 play in the quarters, but the number 8 seed is not going to beat #1 and the bottom four seeds are not going to beat the the top four seeds in the round of 16.

Except for the likelihood that TV $$$ are driving this format change, I would just add the quarter final super regional and leave the scoring the same. I can live with doubles being first, but I do think playing it last would be incredible exciting for any match tied at 3-3.

I am not sure when and where you play the individual event, but I guess it would follow a few days later.

Last year at the finals 2 UVA players had leg cramping problems in the finals vs USC, so fatigue can be an issue the way it is now. I think that without the cramps UVA may well have won, but USC had no problems and UVA was to blame for its own cramping problem IMO.

The committee had considered a “super tiebreaker” for singles matches (first player to 10 points in the third set, and playing one six-game set in doubles with a tiebreaker at sixall instead of playing one eight-game pro set, but subsequent reaction caused committee members to revisit the proposals.

Woohooo to the players, fans and coaches that responded and took action.

It's a solid victory for us fans and the players. But the changes they did put forth are pretty crappy. Is it really worth saving 20 minutes per dual match at the expense of the quality of tennis and well-being of the players?

No 3rd set supertiebreak and no 6 game doubles point as just announced by NCAA - writeup

Changes that will stick:

The enhancements put forward, which would be effective for the 2013 championships, include:

• Remove the warm-up with the opponent before singles and doubles;

• Reduce the time between singles and doubles to five minutes (currently 10); and

• Shorten each changeover from 90 seconds to 60.

Click to expand...

Geez, that's kind of a slap in the face.

They are in a way saying "Fine, little **** ants. We will concede the 3rd set, but you're not going to get any rest. What is that? You'd like a few minutes to get a feel for your opponents strokes? Go F yourself."

but very disappointed UVA fan. I doubt those advocating "no changes" have attended very many. From this fan's viewpoint the current format is ridiculous and it takes way, way too long and is very expensive for any fan who stays all 5 days for the team event to play out.

Then when you add on the individual event that starts the very next day, it becomes an endurance contest for the top players on the top teams and it is not good for their health. I think USC's Steve Johnson played singles and doubles on Friday with a day off on Saturday and then singles and doubles (maybe he lost before the finals in doubles?) for 10 consecutive days in the 90+ degree temperatures and it probably was over 100 on the hard courts at UGA. I heard that he almost had a heat stroke during the individual event.

The first 4 days of the current format starts with matches at 9AM and they usually end around midnight. Who can watch 15 hours of college tennis for 4 straight days? The answer of course is no one can, except many of the wonderful volunteers and administrative staff have to be there.

One thing for sure, the players and coaches do not watch the other teams play unless it is an unlucky assistant who is scouting. You will sometimes see a player, who has to stick around for the individual event, and his coach whose team has lost come over to watch but I think it is mostly to scout a future opponent or just avoid the boredom of the hotel room. The rest of the smart players and coaches are in air conditioning somewhere after practicing in the morning and then they wait and wait some more.

There is a little shade at UGA, but most of the seats are in the sun on hard metal benches, so I dare anyone to seat in the hot sun from 9 AM until the sun sets around 7:30 PM and then stay through midnight when the last match ends on the first 4 days. The reality is that 95% to 99% of the fans, who do come, only come to watch their own teams play and then they leave.

At UGA last year there were very good crowds (for tennis anyway), like over 2,500 when UGA played in the quarters against Pepperdine. Had UGA advanced to semis and finals they would have had huge crowds, but when they had to go indoors for the finals due to rain there would not have been enough room for all of them to watch it.

The rest of the time I doubt there were 500 fans there at any one time. At Tulsa the place was deserted as Tulsa lost early. Same thing at College Station as A & M lost early. Stanford was a little better, but the Stanford men made it to semis that year and the women may have made the finals. The two NCAA's at UGA have had the best attendance and that is because the UGA fans are tennis crazy.

I think this is mostly about TV and $$$. ESPNU had been televising the finals, but they did not do so this past year. They most likely need a guarantee of shorter matches, because they cannot stay on the air if the match runs 4 or maybe even 5 hours as some women's matches have in the past. TV has schedules to keep and a 3 hour window is likely what they want.

The obvious (to me anyway) solution is to add a super regional for the 16's and quarters. The local fans would come out and watch. Then you have a final four. From an attendance viewpoint and IMO playing the final 4 at a neutral site will be a mistake. I prefer it to be at the highest seed remaining home courts.

As to the scoring, with a Final 4 fatigue and 15 hour days no longer a factor if you go to the super regional for the quarters. I would not change the scoring. I would play the singles first, which of course means doubles would rarely be played because they stop the matches at 4 points. As fan I do like to watch doubles, but almost always the team that wins the doubles point, quickly wins three singles matches often at the bottom of the lineup, so quite often the 1 and 2's never finish their singles matches and they are the ones who people like to watch play. With doubles last, at least one more singles match would have to be played out.

As we all know there are very few "big" upsets in college tennis. Maybe when the 8 seed plays 9, 10 plays 7, or when 4 and 5 play in the quarters, but the number 8 seed is not going to beat #1 and the bottom four seeds are not going to beat the the top four seeds in the round of 16.

Except for the likelihood that TV $$$ are driving this format change, I would just add the quarter final super regional and leave the scoring the same. I can live with doubles being first, but I do think playing it last would be incredible exciting for any match tied at 3-3.

I am not sure when and where you play the individual event, but I guess it would follow a few days later.

Last year at the finals 2 UVA players had leg cramping problems in the finals vs USC, so fatigue can be an issue the way it is now. I think that without the cramps UVA may well have won, but USC had no problems and UVA was to blame for its own cramping problem IMO.

Click to expand...

Good post. They shouldn't touch the third set in singles, the doubles pro set, the warm ups or the 90-second changeover. But the set up for the Sweet Sixteen and breaking it up has its good points too. I will miss all of the top 16 converging into one site to play it out but this might build up the final four in tennis more in the way basketball has it.

This is fantastic news. If college went to 10pt thirds, many USTA tourneys would eventually follow - and that would have been a disaster exponentially more destructive than those who think current USTA changes are bad.

I think we're seeing a shift to more and more juniors considering college a viable stepping stone to pros. Gibbs, Klahn, Kosakowski, Burdette, Johnson are showing this. But the 10 pt tiebreak would have killed this momentum/trend.

And this great for the college game as well and also for those juniors - most of whom won't make pro either path..so by going to college, at least they have a start on an education.

Hats off the many student-athletes who really banded together and sent such a loud and clear and immediate message to the NCAA. And also to the NCAA for actually listening.

I'm glad the NCAA reconsidered, but losing the warm up and shortening changeovers is rough. I'm sure guys will practice beforehand, but just walking on court and starting is going to make for some crappy first few games. As for changeovers, well..60 seconds isn't too bad, but on hot days, and 3rd sets, it'll take its toll. I hope coaches really emphasize staying hydrated and keeping their players healthy.

the 60 second changeover is not good, since officials are geared to call time at 30 secs before so players are ready at 60 or 90 seconds, so rest is cut in half, I see conferences deciding to keep 90 second changeovers, since their rules supersede ITA in conference matches.

the 60 second changeover is not good, since officials are geared to call time at 30 secs before so players are ready at 60 or 90 seconds, so rest is cut in half, I see conferences deciding to keep 90 second changeovers, since their rules supersede ITA in conference matches.

Click to expand...

When does the 60 second window actually start? Is it from the time the point ends or from the time the players sit down.

It's a solid victory for us fans and the players. But the changes they did put forth are pretty crappy. Is it really worth saving 20 minutes per dual match at the expense of the quality of tennis and well-being of the players?

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. It's ok with no warmup (you can warmup before), or 5 minutes before singles and doubles, but with 90 to 60 seconds I don't think so.

I'm glad the NCAA reconsidered, but losing the warm up and shortening changeovers is rough. I'm sure guys will practice beforehand, but just walking on court and starting is going to make for some crappy first few games. ....

Click to expand...

I'm thinking the ref should be given a starter pistol to kick off the match......
BANG! GO!

do what I witnessed at a tournament in Kentucky...ie. don't have any seats for the players to sit in... this would encourage them to play through changeovers..... it would save a few seconds so the tv companies would be happy and who cares about the health aspects the almighty dollar is much more important to the ncaa

My apologies if this has already been posted before, but...if the real objective of the NCAA was to change the format to make it more tv friendly,and they actually achieved this objective, isn't the first thing the broadcasters woul do is ask to increase the length of the change overs so they could get more commercials in ?

My apologies if this has already been posted before, but...if the real objective of the NCAA was to change the format to make it more tv friendly,and they actually achieved this objective, isn't the first thing the broadcasters woul do is ask to increase the length of the change overs so they could get more commercials in ?

Click to expand...

Possibly a good point, but with 6 matches at once it is different than a pro tournament with a feature match. Realistically, no one would get pissed if they came back to the match and started showing a match at 15-15 in the game.

Harder thing to do would be to get commercials in the first place. Figuring approx $10k of revenue needed for a network to do a match...

Completely agree with Bruce. These changes simply make no sense. The very little amount of time actually saved detracts from the quality of tennis. Again, I have not heard an outcry from the spectators that matches are to long. To make these changes - in case TV is involved - is silly.

Possibly a good point, but with 6 matches at once it is different than a pro tournament with a feature match. Realistically, no one would get pissed if they came back to the match and started showing a match at 15-15 in the game.

Harder thing to do would be to get commercials in the first place. Figuring approx $10k of revenue needed for a network to do a match...